let me know if that doesn't work. but that is my whole powerpoint presentation of the politics of japan and chinaA Brief Overview: Government The many political systems which govern the world's inhabitants today are the product of a complicated chain of events known as human history. The saga of our governed existence is full of death and destruction, life and progress, and enough mistakes to give us some false sense of accomplishment. But one thing is certain, outlining a thorough guide detailing all of the intricacies of government sounds to me like the work of historians, not philosophers. Here instead we will provide a brief overview of government in order to illustrate its purpose; as well as give some history and insight into the workings of a few of the systems that have shaped the non-western world. What is the purpose of government? This is the first philosophical barrier we must overcome if any greater understanding is to come from exploring world politics.
Þ Define: GOVERNMENT - the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit - the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed
Þ Define: POLITICS - the study of government of states and other political units
*My opinions on this question- I happen to believe that the origin of government was the discovery by early humans that: Every person has their own strengths as well as their own weaknesses. Humanity began with tiny families of nomadic scavengers barely able to stay alive on their own. Yet as hunting and gathering was adopted so was some group mobility. These nomads eventually found other humans in a similar state of societal development and would help each other to mutually survive. As time progressed, a certain person (or group of people) may have realized that by assigning specific tasks to people with certain strengths a more efficient means of living could be achieved. This person would have been the source of great happiness for this ‘band’ of people and the resulting trust would have been the source of great power. As we give authoritative power to politicians today via documents of expressed rights, power was originally awarded through respect and merit. Soon this ‘chief’ decision maker would have been fully recognized as hunting/ gathering improved and the bellies of his elated subordinates were full of furry elephants and oversized mountain lion. It would have been easier to work with the ‘group’ because the ‘whole’ nearly always benefitted. Working alone to ensure one’s own survival soon appeared pointless and difficult. The group or ‘tribe’ could provide protection to the defenseless, as long as they had something to give in return. The leader(s) would have passed their awarded power to one of his kin upon his death, and thus, would have initiated a hereditary monarchy. This tribe would expand and begin to argue, with the likes of similar organizations, over rights to property. The warrior would then have come to prominence and the development of military bodies would soon follow in order to carry out small conquests. Also, occasionally a member of the tribe will have committed an action which was not pleasing to a majority of other tribesmen. This person would have to be dealt with if order was to be kept. Thusly, definitions of crime and punishment would arise.
The above scenario is simplistic demonstration of what was actually a very complex shift in Human society. This was essentially how our ancestors began to interact, share ideas and eventually create systems of governing themselves.
The first Human must have been lonely and confused. Alone he would have sat in a dark cave silently thinking. An intelligent beautiful creature shunned from his family of unfeeling ape-like hominids, all the while having the means to ask, “Why?”
The study of Sociology gives us many different means of classifying stages of cultural/political development. One such means, developed by Morton Fried and Elman Service, categorizes historical development into 4 stages.
1) Hunter-Gatherer Band Societies “Unlike the hunter-gatherers, or foragers, of the Paleolithic period, modern foraging societies have adapted to marginal environment: deserts, tropical rain forests, and arctic regions. A mobile, nomadic lifestyle is required to survive in these environments. Population growth among foragers within specific territories is minimal. This slow growth rate is due to fissioning and other practices that minimize the number of individuals within a territory. Ethnologists have been studying foragers to determine whether low fertility rates are due to biological or cultural factors. Foragers have developed economic adaptations that depend on reciprocity and resource sharing to produce cooperative behavior. Generally, a foraging society does not depend on private property but rather on kinship and family ownership. Social organization is based on kinship, age, and gender. Kinship relations are maintained among different multifamily bands through marriage. Generally, people marry outside their own band. Gender relations are related to the division of labor: In most societies men hunt and women gather. Age is an important determinant of status. As people reach old age they are respected for their knowledge and teaching skills. There is no formal, centralized political authority. Leadership is based on personal qualities and is not permanent. Warfare is infrequent and restrained because of the limited political organization. Religion in foraging societies is based on a unity between spiritual and material forces. Healers and shamans are the religious specialists who serve the people’s religious needs. Art reflects the spiritual aspects of their culture and the most common subjects are elements of the natural environment.” (http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/930/238288.cw/index.html)
2) Tribal Societies
“Most anthropologists use the term tribe to refer to peoples who rely on horticulture, which is a limited form of agriculture, or pastoralism, which involves the maintenance of animals, for their basic subsistence. Most horticulturalists reside in tropical rain forests, whereas most pastoralists reside in eastern and northern Africa and the Middle East. The population of tribal societies is larger than that of foragers because they have more abundant food supplies. The economic patterns of tribal are based on reciprocal exchanges, although some groups have developed special-purpose forms of monetary exchanges for certain goods. Property ownership is based on large kinship groups. Social organizations vary widely from region to region. Large extended families are the norm. Tribal societies generally have extensive descent groups consisting of many extended families. Marriage in tribal societies tends to be polygynous and usually involves bridewealth exchanges. Marriage bonds are the basis of descent-group alliances among villages. Despite some early research that indicated women had a fairly high status in tribal societies, modern anthropologists find that patriarchy prevails in most tribes. Anthropologists have been investigating the relationship among subsistence, warfare, and biology to explain the prevalence of patriarchy in tribal societies. Age is important in tribal society. Age may be the basis of the economic, political, and religious systems. Tribal political organization is usually decentralized and lacks permanent political offices. Warfare tends to be more prevalent among tribal societies than among foragers. Most anthropologists agree that ecological, demographic, or economic factors alone can explain tribal warfare. Cultural variables such as honor, status, and glory must be used to explain this behavior. Religion in tribal societies consists of animism, shamanism, witchcraft, and sorcery. These practices and beliefs explain much human misfortune. Tribal religion may also be familistic, with beliefs in ancestor worship and spirits that commune with the living members of descent groups.” (http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/931/238339.cw/index.html)
3) Stratified Chiefdoms
“Chiefdoms are intermediate forms of societies between tribal and large-scale state societies. They tend to consist of centralized economic and political sociocultural systems in contrast to those of foragers or tribes. They have existed in many parts of the world. Chiefdoms usually had greater populations and more extensive technologies than did tribes. The political economy of chiefdoms was based on redistributional economic exchanges, in which the upper stratum, the chiefly families, had greater access to wealth, power, and political authority than did other people. The chiefs had to rule through popular acceptance rather than through coercion. The social organization of chiefdom societies consisted of lineages, clans, and other descent groups. Yet unlike tribal societies, these descent groups were ranked in strata based on their relationship to a chiefly family. Marriages were frequently endogamous within a particular stratum. Many chiefdoms were polygynous, especially in the upper stratum. Gender relations tended to be patriarchal and senior males often dominated chiefdom societies in a form of gerontocracy. Slavery existed while uncommon and noncommercial. Law and religion were intertwined with the sociopolitical structure of chiefdom societies. Chiefly authority settled disputes while being backed up by supernatural sanctions such as the tabu system of Polynesia. Both art and music were intended to be a form of homage to the legitimacy of the chiefs and their ancestral deities.” (http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/931/238394.cw/index.html)
Interestingly, nearly all of the modern societies in our world today can be traced back to some type of tribe led by a chief. It seems to be the common ancestor of humanity which existed before the complexities of geographic specialization placed immense rifts between the rates of development in civilizations across the globe. People are people and all have the same basic needs: Food, water, shelter, protection, ect. So, not surprisingly, the realization that a system of governance could more efficiently provide us with these things was universal. Though the measures these governments took to ‘serve’ their people over the years were very different.
The many political systems which govern the world's inhabitants today are the product of a complicated chain of events known as human history. The saga of our governed existence is full of death and destruction, life and progress, and enough mistakes to give us some false sense of accomplishment. But one thing is certain, outlining a thorough guide detailing all of the intricacies of government sounds to me like the work of historians, not philosophers. Here instead we will provide a brief overview of government in order to illustrate its purpose; as well as give some history and insight into the workings of a few of the systems that have shaped the non-western world.
What is the purpose of government?
This is the first philosophical barrier we must overcome if any greater understanding is to come from exploring world politics.
Þ Define: GOVERNMENT
- the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit
- the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed
Þ Define: POLITICS
- the study of government of states and other political units
*My opinions on this question-
I happen to believe that the origin of government was the discovery by early humans that: Every person has their own strengths as well as their own weaknesses. Humanity began with tiny families of nomadic scavengers barely able to stay alive on their own. Yet as hunting and gathering was adopted so was some group mobility. These nomads eventually found other humans in a similar state of societal development and would help each other to mutually survive. As time progressed, a certain person (or group of people) may have realized that by assigning specific tasks to people with certain strengths a more efficient means of living could be achieved. This person would have been the source of great happiness for this ‘band’ of people and the resulting trust would have been the source of great power. As we give authoritative power to politicians today via documents of expressed rights, power was originally awarded through respect and merit. Soon this ‘chief’ decision maker would have been fully recognized as hunting/ gathering improved and the bellies of his elated subordinates were full of furry elephants and oversized mountain lion. It would have been easier to work with the ‘group’ because the ‘whole’ nearly always benefitted. Working alone to ensure one’s own survival soon appeared pointless and difficult. The group or ‘tribe’ could provide protection to the defenseless, as long as they had something to give in return. The leader(s) would have passed their awarded power to one of his kin upon his death, and thus, would have initiated a hereditary monarchy. This tribe would expand and begin to argue, with the likes of similar organizations, over rights to property. The warrior would then have come to prominence and the development of military bodies would soon follow in order to carry out small conquests. Also, occasionally a member of the tribe will have committed an action which was not pleasing to a majority of other tribesmen. This person would have to be dealt with if order was to be kept. Thusly, definitions of crime and punishment would arise.
The above scenario is simplistic demonstration of what was actually a very complex shift in Human society. This was essentially how our ancestors began to interact, share ideas and eventually create systems of governing themselves.
The first Human must have been lonely and confused. Alone he would have sat in a dark cave silently thinking. An intelligent beautiful creature shunned from his family of unfeeling ape-like hominids, all the while having the means to ask, “Why?”
The study of Sociology gives us many different means of classifying stages of cultural/political development. One such means, developed by Morton Fried and Elman Service, categorizes historical development into 4 stages.
1) Hunter-Gatherer Band Societies
“Unlike the hunter-gatherers, or foragers, of the Paleolithic period, modern foraging societies have adapted to marginal environment: deserts, tropical rain forests, and arctic regions. A mobile, nomadic lifestyle is required to survive in these environments.
Population growth among foragers within specific territories is minimal. This slow growth rate is due to fissioning and other practices that minimize the number of individuals within a territory. Ethnologists have been studying foragers to determine whether low fertility rates are due to biological or cultural factors. Foragers have developed economic adaptations that depend on reciprocity and resource sharing to produce cooperative behavior. Generally, a foraging society does not depend on private property but rather on kinship and family ownership.
Social organization is based on kinship, age, and gender. Kinship relations are maintained among different multifamily bands through marriage. Generally, people marry outside their own band. Gender relations are related to the division of labor: In most societies men hunt and women gather. Age is an important determinant of status. As people reach old age they are respected for their knowledge and teaching skills.
There is no formal, centralized political authority. Leadership is based on personal qualities and is not permanent. Warfare is infrequent and restrained because of the limited political organization.
Religion in foraging societies is based on a unity between spiritual and material forces. Healers and shamans are the religious specialists who serve the people’s religious needs. Art reflects the spiritual aspects of their culture and the most common subjects are elements of the natural environment.”
(http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/930/238288.cw/index.html)
2) Tribal Societies
“Most anthropologists use the term tribe to refer to peoples who rely on horticulture, which is a limited form of agriculture, or pastoralism, which involves the maintenance of animals, for their basic subsistence. Most horticulturalists reside in tropical rain forests, whereas most pastoralists reside in eastern and northern Africa and the Middle East.
The population of tribal societies is larger than that of foragers because they have more abundant food supplies. The economic patterns of tribal are based on reciprocal exchanges, although some groups have developed special-purpose forms of monetary exchanges for certain goods. Property ownership is based on large kinship groups.
Social organizations vary widely from region to region. Large extended families are the norm. Tribal societies generally have extensive descent groups consisting of many extended families.
Marriage in tribal societies tends to be polygynous and usually involves bridewealth exchanges. Marriage bonds are the basis of descent-group alliances among villages. Despite some early research that indicated women had a fairly high status in tribal societies, modern anthropologists find that patriarchy prevails in most tribes. Anthropologists have been investigating the relationship among subsistence, warfare, and biology to explain the prevalence of patriarchy in tribal societies.
Age is important in tribal society. Age may be the basis of the economic, political, and religious systems.
Tribal political organization is usually decentralized and lacks permanent political offices.
Warfare tends to be more prevalent among tribal societies than among foragers. Most anthropologists agree that ecological, demographic, or economic factors alone can explain tribal warfare. Cultural variables such as honor, status, and glory must be used to explain this behavior.
Religion in tribal societies consists of animism, shamanism, witchcraft, and sorcery. These practices and beliefs explain much human misfortune. Tribal religion may also be familistic, with beliefs in ancestor worship and spirits that commune with the living members of descent groups.”
(http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/931/238339.cw/index.html)
3) Stratified Chiefdoms
“Chiefdoms are intermediate forms of societies between tribal and large-scale state societies. They tend to consist of centralized economic and political sociocultural systems in contrast to those of foragers or tribes. They have existed in many parts of the world.
Chiefdoms usually had greater populations and more extensive technologies than did tribes. The political economy of chiefdoms was based on redistributional economic exchanges, in which the upper stratum, the chiefly families, had greater access to wealth, power, and political authority than did other people. The chiefs had to rule through popular acceptance rather than through coercion.
The social organization of chiefdom societies consisted of lineages, clans, and other descent groups. Yet unlike tribal societies, these descent groups were ranked in strata based on their relationship to a chiefly family. Marriages were frequently endogamous within a particular stratum. Many chiefdoms were polygynous, especially in the upper stratum. Gender relations tended to be patriarchal and senior males often dominated chiefdom societies in a form of gerontocracy. Slavery existed while uncommon and noncommercial.
Law and religion were intertwined with the sociopolitical structure of chiefdom societies. Chiefly authority settled disputes while being backed up by supernatural sanctions such as the tabu system of Polynesia. Both art and music were intended to be a form of homage to the legitimacy of the chiefs and their ancestral deities.”
(http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_cultanthro_5/3/931/238394.cw/index.html)
4) Civilizations- feel free to explore the below Wikipedia.org article on Civilizations.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization)
Interestingly, nearly all of the modern societies in our world today can be traced back to some type of tribe led by a chief. It seems to be the common ancestor of humanity which existed before the complexities of geographic specialization placed immense rifts between the rates of development in civilizations across the globe. People are people and all have the same basic needs: Food, water, shelter, protection, ect. So, not surprisingly, the realization that a system of governance could more efficiently provide us with these things was universal. Though the measures these governments took to ‘serve’ their people over the years were very different.
To see some of the modern developement of the following Non-Western societies, click on the links below:
Australia
Asia
Native America
South America
Middle East
Central America
Africa
Doug and Ravi's Native American Culture Information
Native American groups by region
North America
- Amuzgo
- Chocho
- Cocopa
- Guarijio
- Kikapu
- Paipai
- Tepehuan
- Chontal de Oaxaca
- Chatino
- Chichimeca Jonaz
- Chinantec
- Ch'ol
- Chontal Maya
- Cochimi
- Cora
- Cuicatec
- Huastec
- Huave
- Huichol
- Ixcatec
- Kiliwa
- Kumeyaay
- Lacandon
- Matlatzinca
- Mayo
- Mazahua
- Mazatec
- Mexicanero
- Mixe
- Mixtec
- Nahua
- Pame
- Pima Bajo
- Popoloca
- P'urhepecha
- Seri
- Tarahumara
- Tlapanec
- Totonac
- Trique
- Tzeltal
- Tzotzil
- Yaqui
- Yucatec Maya
- Zapotec
- Zoque
South America- Ache
- Ashaninka
- Awa-Guaja
- Awa-Kwaiker
- Aymara
- Ayareo
- Bora
- Bororo
- Chayahuita
- Cocama-Cocamilla
- Embera
- Enxet
- Jivaroan
- Guarani
- Karaja
- Korubu
- Kuna
- Makuxi
- Mapuche
- Matis
- Matses
- Nukak
- Nasa
- Secoya
- Tapirape
- Ticuna
- Tukano
- Tupi
- Urarino
- U'wa
- Yora
- Wichi
- Warao
- Wayuu
- Yanomami
Central America and the CaribbeanMichaela:
Middle Eastern Government: